Short answer. Possibly, depending on the driver and crew's conduct. The Civil Code makes a common carrier responsible for injuries from the wilful acts of other passengers if its employees, using the diligence of a good father of a family, could have prevented or stopped the attack. If nothing could reasonably have been done, the carrier is not automatically liable.
What the law says
A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
Civil Code, Article 1763 — Acts of Co-Passengers or Strangers. Read the full provision →
The carrier can answer even for someone else's act
Article 1763 extends a bus company's responsibility beyond its own drivers and staff. It covers injuries you suffer because of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers — not just accidents caused by the vehicle or its crew. So the fact that your attacker was a fellow passenger, not an employee of the bus company, does not by itself take the incident outside what the carrier can be answerable for.
The condition that decides it: could the crew have stopped it
The article does not make the carrier an insurer against everything that happens on board. Liability attaches only if the carrier's employees, exercising the diligence of a good father of a family, could have prevented or stopped the act. That standard asks what a reasonably careful crew, paying proper attention to the passengers under their charge, would have noticed and been able to act on — not what a hypothetically perfect crew with foreknowledge of the attack could have done.
Why the buildup to the attack matters
Whether the crew "could have" prevented or stopped the act depends heavily on what warning signs existed and how much time there was to act. An attack that erupted without any prior sign, ending before anyone could realistically intervene, points toward the carrier having no opportunity to prevent it. An attack preceded by a visible altercation, threats, or a disturbance that the crew ignored or failed to respond to points the other way — toward a crew that had the chance to act and did not.
What to gather to support a claim
Write down what happened as precisely as you can: whether there were any warning signs before the attack, how the crew responded once it started, how much time passed, and whether staff were nearby or attentive to the passenger cabin at all. Look for witnesses among the other passengers, any onboard CCTV the company may have, and an incident or police report if one was filed. That record is what will show whether the crew's conduct met the diligence this article requires, so bring it to a lawyer to evaluate your claim against the carrier.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo L. Battung, Jr., represented by Romeo Battung, Sr, G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Fortune Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al, G.R. No. 119756, March 18, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →